Wikipedia:Peer review/Backgammon/archive1

Backgammon

After some significant editing today, I would like to request a review of the current state of this article, as well as suggestions on how to improve it. I believe that most of the concerns expressed in its unsuccesful FAC bid from about a year ago have been addressed. My major concern is with the "Rules" section, particularly how to appropriately reference something of this nature.

Thanks! —

After a couple of days of editing, my biggest concern now is the "Sample game" section. I'm not sure this can ever be encyclopedic, and if the "Rules" and "Strategy" sections are written well enough, I don't think it would be needed. Anyone? —

fgs 20:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• Excellent work on this article! As for the concern with the sample game, I guess it's worth mentioning that Chess includes a wikilink to Sample chess game, which is an extensive article listing a 14-move game with images for each move. Chess is FA, so I wouldn't necessarily say having that would rule it out. I'll take a closer look at the article and see if I can come up with any helpful comments. I see you've already seen the chess page's sample game. Well, let me take a look at the bg section more closely and I'll offer my opinion. --DanielNuyu 05:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 01:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I would say some reordering is necessary in the section about movement. To a novice, a line like The same checker may be moved twice as long as the two moves are distinct: six and then three, or three and then six, but not nine all at once will make no sense if they do not already understand the concept of blots, hits, and points, but the material on that comes just later. I would try introducing that stuff after the sentence about the 6-3 example but before the sentence I referenced (maybe with a paragraph split).

  In the paragraph beginning A checker borne off from a lower point than indicated on the die still counts as the full die, I like that sentence, but I don't like the rest of the paragraph. Aside from the fact that I don't think the rest of the paragraph necessarily illustrates the point made in that sentence, I think that the sentence would make sense to the reader if the rest of the paragraph was removed and the first sentence alone was attached to the previous paragraph.

  I'll take a look at some more of it later. --DanielNuyu 06:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks again for your comments. I'm not sure that the paragraph about consuming the full die during bearoffs is even needed (even though it is part of the accepted rules), as it comes up so rarely anyway. I'll look into rewriting the movement section. —
    fgs 06:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]